2017 Civic Type R rated at 22/28/25 MPG

[erbee]

No gas guzzler tax is good enough for me .

Sponsored

 

[GSquared]

How are you guys getting such low mpg figures? I get between 25-28 mpg on average in my >250k-mile S2000 while redlining multiple times daily.

I guess that's just what the 2.4 Si does. Both of my 9th Si's had approximately the same unmodified mpg, low 20s. It's all city driving, plus our highway here is about a 10mph stop and go fest so it would be even worse there.

 

[Froggie3kb]

I may be the minority but MPG figures don't persuade my decision on what toy to buy. If I was looking for a boring daily to just rack up the miles then I would probably put more thought towards it but normally that would mean looking for a dull car to drive and what's the fun in that. It is interesting to see what she's going to be rated at though and now all we need is the flipping detailed release date and price.

How are you guys getting such low mpg figures? I get between 25-28 mpg on average in my >250k-mile S2000 while redlining multiple times daily.

Lol I average 14-16 MPG in my 50k mile AP1. But... I don't daily her and the only time she gets driven is to raise hell on the mtns etc.

 

[GSquared]

I may be the minority but MPG figures don't persuade my decision on what toy to buy.

I don't care much about MPG either. Doesn't affect my decision in the slightest on a car.

 

[petem]

I don't care much about MPG either. Doesn't affect my decision in the slightest on a car.

Same here. The only car where it really became relevant at all was the Evo X, and then it wasn't the cost of the fuel that was a problem, it was the high consumption combined with a fuel tank the size of a thimble which meant the effective range before looking for fuel wasn't much over 100 miles, which was a real pain. My motorbike has three times that range!

Not sure the CTR will have quite that range looking at the tank size and that suggested mpg (especially bearing in mind that it's US gallons which are smaller than our gallons in the UK so mpg here would be less than that), but thankfully it does look to be reasonable. But even if I had to go back to filling up every 100 miles and paying a fortune for petrol it still wouldn't stop me buying the CTR.

FYI, last I checked your gas in the US was quite a bit cheaper than ours in the UK due to huge taxes here (there is Fuel Duty tax, then Value Added Tax which is calculated both on the cost of the actual fuel, and on the amount of Fuel Duty tax you paid so you're taxed twice on some of it and as a result about 60% of what you pay at the pump is tax). Currently regular unleaded is around £1.17 per litre and super is around £1.27 per litre, which equates to about $5.72 and $6.22 per US Gallon. Maybe that makes up a little for the way your dealers can add a huge mark-up on the car itself...

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

How are you guys getting such low mpg figures? I get between 25-28 mpg on average in my >250k-mile S2000 while redlining multiple times daily.

I pull about 16mpg around town and maybe 21 if I get some mixed driving in my 09 Si. That's on E85 though, so maybe not a completely fair comparison!

 

[RobbJK88]

Is the 2.0L turbo an older gen engine vs the 1.5T? That might explain it.

The 2.0T has been around a bit longer than the 1.5T but not by much. They were both developed at the same time under the Earth Dreams engines. The 2.0T was first used in the 9th gen CTR, the 1.5T was used in some Japanese vehicles before it came here for the Civic and CRV, but they're both current gen engines.

I think (unlike alot of other mainstream 2.0T out there i.e. hyundai, kia, ford, etc) those turbo engines are tuned to achieve higher mpg as a more efficient replacement for V6 engines. The 2.0T honda is using, while capable of being tuned for efficiency, is NOT tuned that way for the Type R. It's been tuned for pure sport, max output and thus the mpgs suffer.

A few other things to keep in mind:

-Manual transmissions paired with these turbos are rated lower mpg than automatic counterparts. IF there was a auto CTR it'd probably net it 2-3 extra mpg. But there won't ever be, so it is what it is.

-All mpg testing must be performed in the car's standard drive mode. In eco/comfort mode the car may be capable of gaining a few extra mpgs at the cost of the performance aspect of the car.

-All engines vary depending on driving conditions and from one driver to the next. Some will net more, some will net less than advertised.

-I assume these engines are brand new and tested before they're totally broken in. Expect a few more mpgs to be gained after break in period as well.

-Why in the world are people comparing the old 2.4L Si to the Type R... your Si doesn't have 300+ horsepower or 250+ torque... mpg numbers are NOT going to be comparable between these two cars. At least compare apples to apples and compare it to other 2.0T engines making 300hp or more.

 

[GSquared]

-Why in the world are people comparing the old 2.4L Si to the Type R... your Si doesn't have 300+ horsepower or 250+ torque... mpg numbers are NOT going to be comparable between these two cars. At least compare apples to apples and compare it to other 2.0T engines making 300hp or more.

We aren't, someone had some insanely high MPG numbers on their Si so we all chimed in to that specific post, not the Type R.

Although my last Si certainly had 300+ hp (418), but it was a 2.4L.

 

[NoelPR]

I was expecting better numbers than the competition since is moving only two wheels.

For example the Golf R is AWD and has better MPG numbers.

-Why in the world are people comparing the old 2.4L Si to the Type R... your Si doesn't have 300+ horsepower or 250+ torque... mpg numbers are NOT going to be comparable between these two cars. At least compare apples to apples and compare it to other 2.0T engines making 300hp or more.

Why not.
Cruising speeds the 2.0T isn't under boost. Power Wise at cruising speed with no boost involved the 2.4lt is producing more power than the 2.0lt. Is strange that after all that aerodynamic improvement and a smaller engine MPGs should be better.

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

-Why in the world are people comparing the old 2.4L Si to the Type R... your Si doesn't have 300+ horsepower or 250+ torque... mpg numbers are NOT going to be comparable between these two cars. At least compare apples to apples and compare it to other 2.0T engines making 300hp or more.

At the highway speed portion of the test, boost isn't a thing, and mpg is really a function of cfm/mi consumed through the engine, and cfm/mi is a function of rpm, and rpm is a function of mph-through-gearset, so turbo or not...it is fair to compare. We should expect lower city mpg because it will likely boost more, and higher highway. If anything, I would almost expect to see higher mpg numbers just based on the fact that the engine is Direct Injected and the epa drive cycle is rather light on the throttle.

The test drive cycle is very strict and is laden with things like 'accelerate from 20-50mph in 30 seconds' which is barely going to take 1/4 throttle to accomplish. 'Maintain 55mph for 2 minutes' and the CTR should see great economy.

Unrelated related example - our Pilot achieved 17.89 mpg over the 3 years and 53774 miles we owned it. The 16MDX is sitting at 21.36 over almost 2 years and 43880 miles... Direct injection and 9 speed auto yield 20% improvement even though the engine makes 40 more hp peak.

 

[Chee_hu]

Any idea which setting this was from? I'm assuming comfort, but it'll be nice to have confirmation.

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

Any idea which setting this was from? I'm assuming comfort, but it'll be nice to have confirmation.

Pretty sure it has to be in the default setting which, as I recall, is Sport.

 

[Chee_hu]

Pretty sure it has to be in the default setting which, as I recall, is Sport.

In that case, would it be okay to assume that comfort would be a little higher? Or are the setting based solely on suspension and ride quality.

 

[pdiizeru]

In that case, would it be okay to assume that comfort would be a little higher? Or are the setting based solely on suspension and ride quality.

I believe throttle response as well

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

In that case, would it be okay to assume that comfort would be a little higher? Or are the setting based solely on suspension and ride quality.

It should be safe to assume slightly higher but not a lot. Sport mode will offer a more responsive throttle which could certainly lead to a higher likelihood of consuming more fuel. I always set the MDX to Comfort on the highway so that the Cruise Control will be less likely to cause downshift on part/full throttle while accelerating back to cruising speed. You can set it to comfort and floor it, or set it to sport and floor it, and it consumes the same amount of fuel. The gains will be in the part throttle.

Sponsored